IB Economics SL Internal Assessment Example

The student includes a relevant tariff diagram and explicitly connects it to the policy change in the article. That makes the figure purposeful rather than decorative, and it gives the reader a visual framework for following their later analysis.

This quantity change is inconsistent with the student's own diagram and the tariff comparison they describe earlier. If they want the analysis to be credible, they should make sure each quantity label matches the correct pre- and post-tariff outcome so the reader can track imports and domestic output accurately.

The student's welfare analysis is not technically secure here. Allocative efficiency is not defined by consumer surplus being maximised, and the surplus areas they assign do not clearly correspond to the tariff wedges shown. They should re-check the welfare decomposition and link each area to the exact price and quantity change.

What conditions would actually have to hold for foreign consumers to benefit from this redirected supply? Asking this will help the student test whether the claim is always true or only true in some markets, and whether it should be presented as a qualified possibility rather than a certainty.

The student uses trade terminology throughout the commentary in a relevant way, and their discussion is tied to the economic model rather than being a list of terms. This helps their explanation stay conceptually grounded and accessible to the reader.

The elasticity claim needs tighter support. The student states that demand is relatively elastic, but they do not show how that follows from the article or diagram. If they want to keep this term, they should explain why substitutes are available and how that shapes the size of the quantity response.

The student applies trade theory effectively by linking comparative advantage to the article’s claim about Chinese cost and quality advantages. That strengthens their argument because it shows they are not just describing the tariff, but explaining why the tariff is being used in the first place.

The student could consider explicitly distinguishing short-run protection for EV firms from longer-run losses for farmers and consumers in a mini-structure of costs and benefits. That would help them show progression in the argument and make the analysis easier to follow.

This is a useful idea, but it needs more precise analysis. Explain how overseas production changes the tariff’s effectiveness: does it reduce the price gap, bypass the tariff directly, or shift the incidence onto other producers? Clarifying the mechanism would make the application much stronger.

This is a relevant consequence, but it is currently asserted rather than developed. To strengthen the analysis, explain the causal chain more fully: higher prices reduce quantity demanded, slower adoption delays emissions reductions, and that makes the policy less attractive when judged against the article’s broader context.

The student's final judgement is clear and well supported by several strands of analysis. They weigh short-run protection against longer-run retaliation, efficiency losses and wider spillovers, which shows strong command of the economic argument.

The student identifies the key concept clearly and in a way that fits the article well. Defining interdependence as cross-border spillovers gives them a strong lens for the commentary and helps keep the discussion focused on trade linkages rather than just tariff policy.

This judgment is important, but it is undermined by the earlier diagram inconsistencies. Before drawing evaluative conclusions from the welfare areas, the student needs to ensure the diagram and the explanation agree; otherwise the reasoning looks stronger than the evidence supporting it.

This is a balanced and defensible overall judgement. The student does not simply repeat the article; instead, they weigh benefits and costs and reach a conclusion that follows from their reasoning, which is exactly what strong evaluation should do.

Which alternative policy is most likely to improve competitiveness while avoiding retaliation, and why? Thinking through that comparison would let the student evaluate the tariff against a realistic policy choice rather than against a vague alternative.